Louise Hardy

[Canada-Yukon Oil And Gas Accord Implementation Act, March 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on it being capped at $3 million, I would rather that had not happened and there were no cap. However that was the way it was negotiated, I think in part because a territory is in a very difficult negotiating position and has to make the best of going from a difficult position to a better position. This agreement was arrived at by the parties involved. I would prefer that there was no cap but there is and we will live with it.

On having the power taken away, again that is part of being a territory. I do not think anyone living in a province would accept that power can be given and power can be taken away. That is how life has been in the territories. As I understand it, under the circumstances of making sure land claims are settled that is important.

All first nations groups should know that they can negotiate without pressure their agreements. After that point I would prefer if the federal government had nothing to do with giving or taking away power. Eventually Yukon will be recognized as a province and will not have to face this kind of withholding.

[Canada-Yukon Oil And Gas Accord Implementation Act, March 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased to rise and support Bill C-8, especially this year as it is quite symbolic. It is the 100th anniversary of the creation of Yukon, which was in 1898. Yukon was originally designated as a postal region. After the gold rush we were worthy enough to become a territory.

This legislation does what it ought to do. After a hundred years it is the beginning of putting power back in the hands of the people who live there. It puts power where it belongs, with the people of Yukon.

This act will implement an accord between the Government of Canada and the Yukon Territory relating the administration, control and legislative jurisdiction in respect of oil and gas. It is an important act for the people of Yukon as it will transfer to Yukon additional legislative powers necessary to undertake, through Yukon legislation, all aspects of the management and administration of onshore oil and gas resources.

This legislation will give the Yukon government province like authority to regulate and manage Yukon gas and oil resources in the public's interest. For those who live in provinces that have provincial powers, the term might not have the same affect on you. But coming from Yukon where we are always winding our way through a maze of asking permission to do this or that, this is really significant. It is a huge difference in how we will function as a people and as a legislature.

The devolution of province like powers will not affect any settlement of an aboriginal land claim because the federal government will retain the capacity of regaining the authority transferred to the Yukon government if it is necessary to settle an aboriginal land claim. This is also important because of the 14 first nations, all of them are not settled. Although it is very close, it is not done yet.

Bill C-8 is necessary legislation to transfer authority for oil and gas resources to the Yukon government. It is a significant event because it confirms Canada's commitment, as set out in the northern oil and gas accord signed in May 1993. It must be viewed as a commitment from Canada to the political evolution of Yukon and to the concept of devolution to Yukon and it should be linked to an orderly transition of the transfers of other remaining resources like forestry and mining. We await eagerly to see how this works out so that we can bring down the power over forestry and mining to us.

The composition of the government in power in Yukon is six people in the cabinet, two ministers are First Nations and our Speaker is a First Nation. The composition of our territory is reflected in the government. As well, first nations people have a very strong representation on the council for Yukon first nations. All of the 14 do not belong but most of them do. They are a very integral part of everyday life. Never are our first nations an afterthought. They are represented in all our levels of government.

We expect that the federal government will complete the devolution of all remaining provincial-like powers and programs to the Yukon government. That will make the people of Yukon far more responsible for their own well-being.

Devolution is a transfer process through which the federal government will transfer all the northern affairs programs of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to the Yukon government. In effect this will end a century of colonialism in Yukon.

As I said, in 1898 a separate territory was created. It had a commissioner who was all powerful. In 1948 the territory suspended its right to income tax collection in exchange for the annual transfer of federal funds. In 1979 the federal government effectively signed over decision making powers to elected territorial representatives. Again, this was a huge change because the commissioner was always appointed.

In 1993 the umbrella final agreement for first nations self-government was signed. On May 28, 1993 the federal government and the Government of the Yukon Territory entered into the Canada-Yukon oil and gas accord. That is what is in front of us to be ratified.

Devolution is an issue of fundamental importance for Yukon people. It will signal the end of a quasi-colonial attitude toward the north and the beginning of a process to gain greater economic self-reliance. It will reinforce participatory democracy because it will give northerners a meaningful democratic say in the development of their own region. It is an essential part of aboriginal self-determination.

With the continuing settlement of Yukon land claims and self-government agreements, Yukoners on the basis of a relationship based on partnerships can look to the future as citizens of Canada and not possessions of the crown.

Devolution is good governance for Yukon, but it will create new employment and economic opportunities, which are desperately needed in the north, and will increase respect for the environment.

Federal and territorial legislation dealing with the transfer of province-like powers to Yukon and the development of a Yukon oil and gas act and regulations is demonstration of a successfully working relationship with first nations and the beginning of a new era of relationships between the people of Yukon and the central government of our confederation.

Devolution opens new opportunities of economic development for Yukoners. After the completion of transfers, Yukon through its own legislation will manage and regulate oil and gas activities including exploration, development, production and conservation, environmental and safety regulations, and the determination and collection of resource revenues.

The Yukon Act is being amended to transfer to northerners new responsibilities and new legislative powers in relation to the exploration of oil and gas; the development, conservative and management of oil and gas, including the rate of primary production; oil and gas pipelines; the raising of money in respect of oil and gas in the territories; and the export of oil and gas.

The amendments will include provisions to allow the federal government to continue to exercise its other responsibilities, including taking back administration and control of oil and gas on any lands in order to settle or implement aboriginal land claims.

It is fully consistent with legislation implementing aboriginal treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including legislation establishing wildlife land management and and environmental regimes.

In addition, the Yukon government has actively involved the Yukon first nations in the process, including the development of the Yukon oil and gas legislation and management process.

The working relationship and close co-operation of the three parties, the federal government, the Yukon government and the Yukon first nations government, have been very successful. The three parties are now committed to completing the remaining land claims and self-government agreements hopefully by the fall of 1998.

Devolution is about partnerships and the assumption of new responsibilities and obligations. The Yukon government and the first nations government established a working partnership on devolution and signed a number of accords. In addition, they have made arrangements concerning their working relationship during the implementation of specific devolution or transfers, particularly an arrangement concerning the transfer of oil and gas responsibilities.

It will give the Yukon government, a local government with locally elected representatives and locally accountable officials, effective control over land and resource management. The territorial government will be in a better position to integrate decisions over resources and will be able to serve more effectively the people of Yukon.

With this transfer of federal resources to the territorial government, financial capital and human resources must at that level guarantee the provision of adequate services and levels of funding. There must be assurances that the resources transferred are enough to provide for the delivery of the mandated responsibilities of the transferred programs.

We expect that the federal government will not withdraw any funding from the programs considered for transfer to the territorial government. It is not in effect a hollow shell handed over to us with all of the responsibility but not the power we need to deal with it.

This negotiated agreement is an historical agreement for the Yukon territory, the Yukon government, first nations of the Yukon and everyone who lives in Yukon. It fully protects the interests of first nations and we are confident it is in compliance with land claims and self-government agreements.

This agreement bodes well for the future of Yukon. In the continuing spirit of co-operation among the federal, territorial and first nations governments, I urge the House to proceed quickly with the bill. It is long awaited and will be much celebrated in this year of our hundredth anniversary.

[The Economy, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a close examination of the budget reveals to Canadians that this budget fails point by point and initiative by initiative to live up to the expectations and the needs of the Canadian people.

In education, providing only 7% of the nation's students with benefits of the proposed millennium fund, which will be administered by the CEO of Chrysler, for industry to train people for industry ignores the role that education plays in our society.

Instead of reinstating funding for post-secondary institutions, the Liberals have chosen to dole out some money which is desperately needed to a few students who are cash starved and then to offer advice to them on how to manage their debt. They are ignoring the student debt crisis and advancing our educational institutions at an alarming rate.

Even the Yukon, a very poor area of Canada, has recognized the importance of investing in education and for over 20 years has provided approximately $5,000 for each of its graduating students accepted at an accredited institution. Part of that is for travel and part is for tuition and books.

This is a really poor area of the country that through thick and thin has provided that amount of funding for students. I believe the federal government should match that as well as provide funding for the institutions to make sure that our students and our young people have a place to go and be educated.

The modest increases in transfer payments to the provinces and territories do not begin to restore the cuts made in 1994. The Liberal government is only giving back a small portion of what was taken from Canadian people.

Saddest of all, this budget ignores the poor people of our country. It has nothing for the poor and the minimal tax breaks announced will for most families amount to less than $500 in tax relief a year.

It will not take the elderly poor off the tax rolls. Over and over members of my community ask why, when they get so little, they have to pay so much in taxes. That is income taxes and the GST. People are struggling to make ends meet. Gone are the days when the single income would support a family.

This budget is a reflection of free enterprise government, a government willing to transfer responsibilities for governing this country to large, private corporations or business associations.

The Liberals have created fundamental shifts in the building blocks of this Canadian society. Canada is running toward a society where the protection of profits and corporate rights are paramount to the protection of our individual rights, our culture, our health, our social and our educational institutions.

This budget confirms the direction of policies that select a few to thrive and prosper while the rest sink and suffer. An important aspect that we are missing in the debate is the original causes of the huge government deficit.

The finance minister stated that never again will we let old habits return of defining bigger government as better government or believing that every problem requires another program.

What is happening is the denying of anything more than a minimal role for government in the economy and a minimal role for governing our country, a government that believes only private companies and market forces will bring employment and prosperity to Canadians. This is not true. It has brought only poverty, not prosperity.

The liberal Conservatives or conservative Liberals running the government are believers in high unemployment but low in stable inflation and low in stable interest rates as the tools for profit oriented companies looking to take over the role of government in society.

The Minister of Finance is preaching a misleading hypothesis that deficits have been caused by extravagant, big-spending government and the only cure was to cut back. Who was cut was the poor and middle class.

The deficit came from high interest rates, overspending and support for very big business and high unemployment. A Statistics Canada study indicated that the rise in deficits came mainly from high interest rates to a Bank of Canada obsession with zero inflation.

An Alberta former civil servant explanation of the deficit is government overspending on business support while slashing health and education that was the real cause of the deficit.

Montreal economist Harold Chorney argues that high unemployment with its loss of revenues and social costs has created far more debt than social spending. The above explanation seems to be shared by the finance minister who said that only a quarter of the savings that cut the deficit came from program cuts. Far more were due to low interest rates, growth and raiding the UI funds.

There is no balanced budget with the present government policies. There was a drastic shift of federal government deficit to the provinces through federal transfer cuts, then to municipalities and finally to individual Canadian families. We see the consequences of these policies in our health system, our education system, in UI benefits that are no longer available, in housing that is no longer there and in the total loss of a whole generation of young Canadians.

Canadian priorities and the priorities of the NDP are being ignored by Liberals. There are no new job strategies, no support for education or health infrastructure and no indication of a fair tax system. Our priorities for the federal budget are to make full employment the primary goal of government and to make a real commitment to addressing the cost of education. It is not a sustainable policy to provide a student with small financial relief if the universities are not being funded and are forced to increase tuition costs to counter government cutbacks.

We want strategic investment to rebuild health care and targeted direct tax relief. This government must stop taxing the poor and the elderly who live below the poverty line. We want targets for the elimination of child poverty as many countries do not accept the level of poverty we accept. Our country is wealthy and we do not have to accept poverty in our midst. We want to rebalance taxes to achieve greater fairness and advance broader goals. We want to see government bring the people of Canada to the centre of government policies.

Between 1993-94 and 1996-97 government budgetary revenues increased by $24.9 billion. Of this increase, 48% was due to personal income tax. Corporations through corporate income tax paid $7.6 billion or just 30%, a clear indication that the federal government is squeezing the people of this country.

To reward Canadians for their individual contributions to the reduction of the federal deficit, the government reduced federal cash transfers to the provinces for health care, education and social assistance from $18.7 billion to a floor of $12.5 billion.

The Yukon has already faced a reduction of 11% in just one year which comes at the very time of a major closing of a mine in the Yukon and absolutely devastates its economy. The federal government is not willing to do anything to recognize the hardship and strife of Yukoners. This is compounded by changes to the EI system where people are not eligible and will not be relocated out of the north to places where they can work.

Canadian living standards are falling. An ever increasing slice of the family budget is consumed by income tax. Twenty-two per cent of Canadian families spend their budget on income tax. The federal government has been taking a bigger slice of Canadians' income but there are still hundreds of rich Canadians who are very good at not paying taxes.

Recent figures indicate that 230 individuals who earned at least a quarter of a million dollars did not pay income tax. Another 1,520 who earned between $100,000 to $250,000 a year did not pay any tax. These figures provide a very good picture of the growing disparities in our country. It is clear that the Liberals are not reinforcing the foundations of an egalitarian society at all.

The minister needs to look back to students with high debts and no jobs, back to those waiting for surgery, back to working Canadians who are slipping economically and socially, to those who are not working and who cannot even get UI. The federal government says that it has won the war on the deficit but its policies are based on the need to make corporations profitable while the social and economic costs are not a concern.

Let history record that the Liberals tore up the just fundamentals of our society and that the deficit was defeated on the backs of Canadian people and the fundamental tenets of a caring society.

Numbers and words say this budget is balanced, but is our country balanced? Poor regions are sinking into poverty and they are taking the young and elderly with them. This budget makes sure it will stay that way.

[Housing, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your direction.

What is the minister going to do to improve the situation in housing when it comes to off reserve people? He sits very close to the aboriginal affairs minister who gave clear direction to negotiate, not litigate.

[Housing, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Tintina group in Watson Lake, Yukon, is not before the courts. The housing situation in the country has become unbelievably severe. People are homeless.

What are you going to do about that? Are you going to—

[Housing, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the housing deficit in the country.

In December the minister took an off reserve housing society, the Meen-Sga-Nist, to court. Under his direction the employees have not been paid for three months. They want to know if they will be paid.

Will the minister stop using these underhanded tactics on other off reserve housing societies? The one that comes to mind is the Tintina housing society in Watson Lake, Yukon.

[National Head Start Program, February 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to rise in support of the motion. It is critical and comes at a critical time in our development. As our society changes there is more and more stress on families. We do not have the ability to stay home and look after our children. The environment I grew up in was a mother at home with eight family members.

I would agree that the motion is not about money. It is about time and about how we allocate time to the nurturing and development of our whole society because each individual adds or detracts from our collective.

We cannot expect to have healthy communities and a strong country if what is coming up behind us is a lot of individuals who have lived in poverty, who are uneducated and who have been neglected by their parents. They do not fit in because they do not speak the same language as us or communicate in the same way.

If we are to have any positive effect on the future of our country, I would agree with my colleague who introduced the motion that we have to do it at an early stage. We have to be diligent, aware, conscientious and particularly caring if we are to have a constructive and co-operative intervention at an early age and be serious about it.

We have the example of what is happening in a town in B.C. There is outrage. The intent on all parts is to work together to do something positive to protect those who are vulnerable, our children. We have to focus on our children and put the rights of parents second.

It is a very sensitive issue both culturally and individually. I have worked with people who have had their children taken away from them. Extreme trauma is suffered by both the children and the parents.

If there is a will ,there is truly a way for us to overcome these obstacles. We should not say that it is a provincial responsibility or the mother's responsibility and has nothing to do with us. We need to work together because it has everything to do with us.

When Reena Virk was killed we all felt horror and outrage. Where did we fail? The motion is an attempt to look at where we failed. What on earth went wrong to create that level of violence among Canadians?

If as a collective group, as citizens of the country, we want individuals who are physically strong, who are emotionally strong and who have psychological health so that their energy is directed toward being teachers, carpenters, architects, lawyers or doctors, we have to go to the beginning. A large part of that is to recognize the role of motherhood and the role of fatherhood within society. From there we should link it to every policy we make so that we strengthen families, so that each family in turn produces children who are strong, who are a benefit to our country and who are people we can be extremely proud of.

It has been said that we cannot teach love and caring, but we can. We can teach by example what love is and we can teach how to care. Through every gesture which shows care and protection we show love. It is up to us to do that.

If someone does not know how to do that, there have been examples given of how one mother will work with another mother, which is a very natural process, or one father will work with another father. Just think of all the men and women who act as coaches. They teach sportsmanship and how to work together in difficult situations. For children sporting events are difficult situations. If we teach them principles and values at that stage they will follow through to how we treat each other in the House. We can teach how to love and how to care. We cannot legislate those things, but we can certainly make sure that people know how to do them. We can set the example.

If we want to address these issues we have to recognize what they are linked to. A lot of it is poverty. We have to address what our government can and should do about poverty. We have to address what we can do to make sure people are educated and fed. We have to intervene when there is abuse, whether it is physical, emotional or verbal. Again that relates to teaching.

If we are to address alcoholism we need a drug strategy. We need to be serious about it. We need to address it at all levels, from its beginnings to the violence and the criminality which result from alcoholism.

We cannot change the fact that there are many people afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect but we can prevent it. We can be very serious about preventing it and making access to alcohol a lot more difficult than it is, rather than it being a ritual or some sort of right of passage of drinking and carrying on at a certain age. That does not have to be part of our society.

We should remove stress from families. Our role as government is to see how we connect, how our policies link to each other, instead of dividing everything into separate parts and saying you are responsible for this, that department is responsible for that or the provinces can do this. We should be open minded enough to look at where we can really make a difference in the lives of families so they have the time they need to look after their children who are a part of our community and society.

Once again I would like to say it is not just about money. It is about time, the time we need to bring up our children. We must recognize that and make sure it is possible for people to bring up their children and not have to do it alone.

It is very difficult to be left alone with many young children. We should recognize the hardship of that and that it is unnatural. We need to help each other in bringing up our children. It benefits us all, or it will be to the detriment of us all.

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first term in Parliament. I did not anticipate debating the possibility of Canada participating in a war.

Through the campaign I was asked many questions, but no one asked this question, no one asked about war. What prepares one for a debate such as this and the possible outcome of it? I believe it should be our humanity and our desire for peace that guides us.

Canada should be on the side of those who seek to resolve this crisis through negotiations and diplomacy. There is nothing to be gained in the long run through a strategy of provocation and threats. I join a Yukon resident, Rod Snow, who I just spoke to, who is opposed to the prospect of force. It is an admission of failure, the absolute failure of the world's leaders. It is not an admission I would like to make.

We must approach this extremely critically based on knowledge and based on what we know. It is hard to make decisions on what we do not know. As a parliamentarian I have not been briefed by our government. We have not had any UN representative to brief us. I do not know all the weapons information that there is. Are they there in Iraq? The UN inspectors have not been able to go in and confirm what is there.

What do we know about our Canadian army? Are they prepared? We just heard, as they have just come through the ice storm and assisting people through floods, that their budget is gone, they are understaffed, they face cutbacks, they are underfunded. We can barely give them helmets, a decent wage or even basic housing. There is very little we give them and in return what we are asking our soldiers to give us is possibly their lives.

We do not know what the financial cost of this endeavour will be to Canadians. Is it open-ended? Will we be able to get out? More importantly, can we afford the human cost?

What do we know about Iraq? We know Saddam Hussein is a dictator. We know that he is a gross human rights abuser and that he kills his own citizens. That is no reason for us to believe that it would be better for us kill his citizens than for him to do it himself. That is no reason for us to go in and join a military strike of bombing.

We know that the widows and children of the gulf war are starving and dying daily. There is little if any medicine. The cities are crumbling and the young and the elderly are living under sanctions imposed in part by us. They may have biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, but so do other countries.

I would like to know who is arming this dictator. Who is selling the arms? Once again, the UN inspectors have not been able to finish their work.

Our ultimate objective, of course, is peace. What we need to do to reach this is to make sure that the UN inspectors can get into Iraq. If we join this strike as planned by the U.S., not by the UN, if we strike first there is no peace.

What would cause the greatest harm is bombing. We know that the bombs are not precise. We know who will be beneath those bombs: families, mothers, fathers, children, people who have already suffered, who are already starving and dying and who are already living under a brutal dictator.

I have heard over the last few days that what we have here are principles. Our principles are at stake. I believe, more importantly, that lives are at stake. Before we jeopardize human lives by the use of deadly weapons and approve death sentences for many civilians and before we expose our Canadian soldiers to war who may be ill prepared for it, we must make every effort to get UN inspectors into Iraq.

There will be no winners in this war. However, there is time and there are options. We do not have to go to war. We do not have to be pushed into this, especially in such a short time period, January 29 to this date. The pressure is building that we have to join, but we do not have to join.

What we need to do is make sure there is an international team of UN inspectors that excludes the U.S., Britain and possibly even Canada, but inspectors who would be allowed into Iraq to do their work. We could ease the inhumane sanctions that are causing more suffering for civilians and use that as leverage for the UN inspectors to enter Iraq.

I have heard that Canada has an obligation to join its allies and go to war. However, we are not obligated to start a war or to be a part of a war where we know the majority of suffering will fall on civilians. The language has changed so much that the death of civilians is called collateral damage. It is not seen for what it is, torture and death.

What we face is the possibility of damage by Saddam Hussein and the possibility of a threat. Once again, other countries have weapons of mass destruction. This damage and threat can be warded off with diplomacy. As leaders of the country and as members of Parliament, it is incumbent on us to make sure that we use that diplomacy.

We face the certainty of harm in comparison to the possibility of the threat from the country of Iraq. We face the certainty of harm and destruction if we join the U.S. in bombing Iraqi citizens because those are the people who will suffer. Saddam Hussein has shown himself to be very capable of surviving anything. However, it is those who are most vulnerable who will not survive and will suffer further and further.

We also face the unknown that will follow if we do start bombing. There will be a conflagration in that area. It might ignite. It may spread. It may drag on for years.

Most of all, we must seek a humane solution. A humane solution is one where we do the least harm and the most good.

In ending, I would like to thank the Speaker, the pages and the clerk for seeing this debate through to the end and also all my parliamentary colleagues who stayed well into the night. Hopefully this is a debate that we will never have to have again and that it will only happen once in our lifetime.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was very curious and listened closely because I wanted to see if the hon. member would mention Yukon or the territories.

The transfer payments to Yukon will be cut by $20 million. Our only weather station in the whole north has been taken away. There will be no flood warnings this year.

We have just had a huge event in Yukon. The only operating iron ore mine has closed, throwing over 700 people out of work. Changes to UI have meant that they will not be eligible for UI. The changes to the transfer payments mean that we no longer have the Canada Assistance Plan that would match that level of devastation by 50%.

We have cuts in transfer payments, which means that the Yukon government has less money to absorb on social assistance for those who are no longer eligible for UI because of the changes.

The compounding of the situation is not good for Canadians, and I am distressed that a member of Parliament did not even mention the territories.

[Euthanasia, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion to have a committee prepare a bill that would deal with physician assisted suicide. We should not force a prolonged painful dreadful death on a rational but incapacitated terminally ill human being.

People are already being assisted with their suicides, with their choice to die with dignity, but it is happening without open discussion and without any safeguards. We need to clarify the practice of any treatment that lessens suffering and may shorten life and withholding or withdrawal of treatment that would prolong life. When are these actions legally acceptable? More important, when are they ethically and morally acceptable.

My mother at 59 suffered a heart attack and became mentally incapacitated, but physically she was very strong. I remember asking the doctor why she was not getting the treatments that would help her. His reply was that she was old and was now mentally handicapped. I argued and pushed for her to have the treatments. She remained very strong physically but her life was certainly limited. My life was devoted to her care.

As time went on, another doctor asked if we should revive her if she had another heart attack. I was appalled. I never believed that I would be asked that question. I did not believe it was for me to answer that question. It was her life. I had never talked to my mother about death and I had never prepared myself to answer a question like that. I never knew what her beliefs were except that she was Catholic and it was not something she wanted.

More than anything, she loved being alive. Her way of life was different. It was limited but it was full of joy. She wanted to be with her grandchildren and she wanted to be with me. That was all that mattered and she loved it. I resented having that question asked because I felt it was wrong. It was an ethical question and if my mother had not made that choice, I was not there to make it for her.

We need to know when the interest of the individual overrides our concern for the whole of society and the implications that physician assisted suicide poses for all of us. These changes, should we make them, would not pre-empt palliative care, pain control or symptom relief. We need safeguards for the sanctity of life and we need to consider those safeguards.

Those who do not want to suffer must give informed voluntary consent that is enduring and free of coercion and they must be able to revoke that consent at any moment. They must be sound in mind, competent and unimpaired when making their decisions and their decisions must be based on complete medical knowledge of their illness. A physician cannot be compelled in any way to participate in the process and no one should ever gain in any way from a physician assisted suicide. The decision must be made by the individual, not by the family, friends, clergy, sons or daughters.

We must let a committee hear all the moral, medical, legal, ethical, religious and societal arguments and attempt to balance those with the pleas of those suffering from a terminal illness.

When I travelled throughout the Yukon in January I spoke to high school students. They were intrigued and fascinated by this question. It was immediately something important to them. A young First Nations boy knew he would do what his elders wanted, that he would not oppose them. He felt he would be wrong in opposing their wishes or the wishes of anyone who asked him for help in that way. He wanted to know more and to talk more.

I telephoned my bishop to hear what he had to say and his concerns. Where should we be going? What historical perspective do we need on this issue? Most of all we cannot leave a person to go into a vehicle, turn on the ignition and die alone and deserted without any ceremony. We cannot allow people to end their lives with indignity.

I believe it is critical to take this time to put all these questions before our countrymen and women and to come to a decision that will assist us all. Then we will not be caught out. We will be able to discuss death and we will not be afraid of it. When it comes to suicide we will be able to discuss the shame we all feel, the sense of loss or the feeling that we have somehow failed someone who no longer wants to be among us.

I support this motion.